Mishnah.org Logo

Mishnayos Meilah Perek 1 Mishnah 4

מעילה פרק א׳ משנה ד׳

4

With regard to establishing liability for misuse of consecrated items, there is an aspect of leniency and an aspect of stringency in the act of sprinkling the blood of offerings of the most sacred order. But with regard to the sprinkling of the blood in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity, it contains in its entirety aspects of stringency, i.e., there are only aspects of stringency. How so? The status of offerings of the most sacred order is that before the sprinkling of blood, one is liable for misusing their sacrificial portions that are to be burned on the altar, and for misusing the meat that is to be eaten by the priests. Since the meat is prohibited prior to sprinkling the blood, it is in the category of items consecrated to God, which are subject to the halakhot of misuse. After the sprinkling of the blood of offerings of the most sacred order, one is still liable for misuse of their sacrificial portions, as they remain prohibited to be eaten and are in the category of items consecrated to God, but one is not liable for misuse of the meat, as it is now permitted for consumption by the priests. This explains how there is an aspect of leniency in the sprinkling of the blood of offerings of the most sacred order. By contrast, for consumption of both this, the sacrificial portions, and that, the meat, after the sprinkling of the blood, one is liable to receive karet due to violation of the prohibition against consumption of piggul, and the prohibition against consumption of notar, and the prohibition against consumption of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. Consequently, the act of sprinkling blood of offerings of the most sacred order is found to contain an aspect of leniency and an aspect of stringency. But with regard to the sprinkling of the blood of offerings of lesser sanctity, all of their aspects are of stringency. How so? The status of offerings of lesser sanctity is that before the sprinkling of the blood, one is not liable for misuse, not for their sacrificial portions nor for the meat. After the sprinkling of the blood, one is liable for misuse of their sacrificial portions, but one is not liable for misuse of the meat. This explains how the sprinkling of the blood in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity causes a stringency in terms of the halakhot of misuse. And for consumption of both this, the sacrificial portions, and that, the meat, after the sprinkling of the blood, one is liable to receive karet due to violation of the prohibition against consumption of piggul, and of the prohibition against consumption of notar, and of the prohibition against consumption of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. Consequently, in the act of sprinkling the blood of offerings of lesser sanctity, it is found that all of their aspects are of stringency.

מַעֲשֵׂה דָמִים בְּקָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחֲמִיר. וּבְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, כֻּלָּן לְהַחֲמִיר. כֵּיצַד. קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, מוֹעֲלִין בָּאֵמוּרִין וּבַבָּשָׂר. לְאַחַר זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, מוֹעֲלִים בָּאֵמוּרִים וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בַּבָּשָׂר. עַל זֶה וְעַל זֶה, חַיָּבִין מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. וּבְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים כֻּלָּן לְהַחֲמִיר. כֵּיצַד. קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, אֵין מוֹעֲלִין לֹא בָאֵמוּרִין וְלֹא בַבָּשָׂר. לְאַחַר זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, מוֹעֲלִין בָּאֵמוּרִין וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בַּבָּשָׂר. עַל זֶה וְעַל זֶה, חַיָּבִין מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. נִמְצָא מַעֲשֵׂה דָמִים בְּקָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחֲמִיר. וּבְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, כֻּלּוֹ לְהַחֲמִיר:

ד׳
Bartenura

מעשה דמים – this sprinkling/tossing of the blood.

ואין מועלין בבשר – after the sprinkling/tossing of the blood, there is no religious sacrilege with the flesh/meat, for already it has its hour of availability [for use by] the Kohanim (see Mishnah 1 of this chapter), which isits leniency, for because of the sprinkling/tossing of the blood, there comes the leniency that we don’t have religious sacrilege with it.

על זה ועל זה – whether for those portions of the sacrifices offered on the altar whether on the flesh/meat after the sprinkling/tossing [of the blood[.

חייבין משום פיגול – if he had the wrong intention in one of the four [Divine] Services, for sprinkling/tossing [of the blood] establishes for the wrong intention and also establishes for remnants/left-overs and that which is ritually impure, and this is make a stringemcy.

ובקדשים קלים – after the sprinkling/tossing [of the blood].

כולו להחמיר – and they commit religious sacrilege with those portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar, for it is was already appropriate to “on High” (i.e.,God), and these are Holy Things and not the money of the owners.

ועל זה ועל זה – whether on the portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar or on the meat/flesh, they are liable for it because of improper intention, left-overs/remnants, and that which is impure. And that means all of it is for stringency.

מעשה דמים. זו זריקת הדם:

ואין מועלין בבשר. לאחר זריקת דמים אין מועלין בבשר, דכבר יש בו שעת היתר לכהנים. והיינו להקל, דמשום זריקת דמים אתיא ליה קולא דאין מועלין בו:

ועל זה ועל זה. בין על האימורין בין על הבשר לאחר זריקה:

חייבין משום פגול. אם פיגל באחת מארבע עבודות. דזריקה קובעת בפגול וקבעה נמי לנותר וטמא. והיינו להחמיר:

ובקדשים קלים. לאחר זריקה:

כולו להחמיר. דמועלין באימורים, דכבר חזו לגבוה וקדשים נינהו ולא ממון בעלים:

ועל זה ועל זה. בין על האימורים בין על הבשר חייבין עליו משום פגול נותר וטמא. והיינו כולו להחמיר: